Author
Topic: Calvinism = Monophysitism? (Read 6064 times)

Would it be fair to describe Calvinist 'monergism' as entailing a kind of monophysitism/monothelitism? What I mean is this: the Eastern Orthodox view of salvation, synergism, means the cooperation of the human being with God; this is consistent with the Orthodox view of the Incarnation. Just as in the Incarnation Divine nature did not swamp human nature out of existence (Eutychianism), in salvation God does not eliminate human nature from the equation, but draws us human beings into loving cooperation with Him.

By contrast, Calvinists don't think we cooperate at all in salvation; humanity plays no role, so...

Am I making any sense?

Why was the Godman necessary if in the end man has nothing to do with anything?

« Last Edit: October 07, 2010, 01:15:40 PM by JLatimer »

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Yes, you are making sense. Perry over at Energetic Procession has alot of posts about that very thing. Maybe you should check it put.

If you read Saint Maximus's discourse with uhm......Pr....I forgot his name. But if you read it, then you will see that the Monothelites believed in two wills, they just believed that only the Divine will was active while the human inactive/passive.

This is the same with Calvinistic monergism.

I didn't want to mention the reality of what the classical monothelites believed on this forum due to not wanting to start an argument with deusveritasest. They indeed believed in two wills, they just believed that only the Divine will was active while the human will inactive.

But yes you are correct!

« Last Edit: October 07, 2010, 01:23:38 PM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Saint Maximus Exposition of his dispute with Pyrrhus:(it's hard to find, but a good chunk of it is in another book called "Free choice in Saint Maximus the Confessor)

Pyrrhus believed in two wills just like Saint Maximus,. The difference was that he only believed the Divine will to be the only one active. The classical Monothelites were Mono, not because they believed that the human will was absorbed or obliterated. They were Mono because they believed the human will to be passive/inactive. And so in that sense they believed in one will. The classical Nestorians were Monothelites as well.

« Last Edit: October 07, 2010, 07:55:57 PM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

The Calvinists are soteriologically monoergistic, but nonetheless if you read the actual works on Christology, they are actually quite Nestorian.

If anything it is the Lutherans who were/are Christologically Monophysite.

The Nestorians were also Monothelites. Lutherans adhere to the Council of Chalcedon, and so they are Dyophysite in their Christology like us. To be honest, they claim to hold to all 7 councils. But their Monergism will always be in conflict with the 6th Council. The same is true with Rome as well. But yes, they both are suppose to hold to the 6th council.

Would it be fair to describe Calvinist 'monergism' as entailing a kind of monophysitism/monothelitism? What I mean is this: the Eastern Orthodox view of salvation, synergism, means the cooperation of the human being with God; this is consistent with the Orthodox view of the Incarnation. Just as in the Incarnation Divine nature did not swamp human nature out of existence (Eutychianism), in salvation God does not eliminate human nature from the equation, but draws us human beings into loving cooperation with Him.

By contrast, Calvinists don't think we cooperate at all in salvation; humanity plays no role, so...

Am I making any sense?

Why was the Godman necessary if in the end man has nothing to do with anything?

Come to think of it......after looking at the title again......I think you should change it to Calvinism = Monoenergism & Monothelitism.

Calvinism = Nestorianism when it comes to Christology. But in regards to it's Monergism it equals Monoenergism and Monothelitism.

« Last Edit: October 07, 2010, 08:33:36 PM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Lutherans adhere to the Council of Chalcedon, and so they are Dyophysite in their Christology like us. To be honest, they claim to hold to all 7 councils.

Have you ever heard of Ubiquitarianism?

I just looked it up last week. I really don't know what to say about it at this point in time. I need to reread some things first. Give me a month or two. I'll respond then.

From what I read from the Roman Catholic NewAdvent site......they saw it as error.....etc. And I think Wicki did too.

However, I need to know how it compares with Saint Cyril, and Saint Maximus's teaching. I need to reread free choice in Saint Maximus the Confessor as well as a few other things.

Well, my point is not in considering it as if a legitimate opinion, but given its prevalence in early Lutheran thought, providing it as a proof of Lutheran Christology being closer to Monophysitism than most other groups.

"Well, my point is not in considering it as if a legitimate opinion, but given its prevalence in early Lutheran thought, providing it as a proof of Lutheran Christology being closer to Monophysitism than most other groups."

Do you mean Monophysitism as in Eutyches, or Miaphysitism as in Severus and the OO (and arguably Cyril).

If it's the latter, that would be interesting because one of the largest Lutheran churches in the world today is in Ethiopia (it could be the largest if you discount the European state Lutheran churches that are now only hollow shells of their former selves). What is the nature of the interaction between Lutherans and OO? I've heard a lot about Lutheran-EO dialogue, not so much with OO.

Logged

I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

"Well, my point is not in considering it as if a legitimate opinion, but given its prevalence in early Lutheran thought, providing it as a proof of Lutheran Christology being closer to Monophysitism than most other groups."

Do you mean Monophysitism as in Eutyches, or Miaphysitism as in Severus and the OO (and arguably Cyril).

If it's the latter, that would be interesting because one of the largest Lutheran churches in the world today is in Ethiopia (it could be the largest if you discount the European state Lutheran churches that are now only hollow shells of their former selves). What is the nature of the interaction between Lutherans and OO? I've heard a lot about Lutheran-EO dialogue, not so much with OO.

Sorry, that fella hasn't posted in a few years.

Logged

My only weakness is, well, never mind

He said he had a horrible houseI looked in it and learnt to shut my mouth

"Well, my point is not in considering it as if a legitimate opinion, but given its prevalence in early Lutheran thought, providing it as a proof of Lutheran Christology being closer to Monophysitism than most other groups."

Do you mean Monophysitism as in Eutyches, or Miaphysitism as in Severus and the OO (and arguably Cyril).

If it's the latter, that would be interesting because one of the largest Lutheran churches in the world today is in Ethiopia (it could be the largest if you discount the European state Lutheran churches that are now only hollow shells of their former selves). What is the nature of the interaction between Lutherans and OO? I've heard a lot about Lutheran-EO dialogue, not so much with OO.